Brent Hunsberger | For The Oregonian/OregonLive

About Me:

Brent Hunsberger has written The Oregonian's "It's Only Money" personal finance column since 2008. He graduated from Indiana University with bachelor's degrees in journalism and sociology.
In 2010, he passed the CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ Board of Standards exam. He now is a candidate for CFP® certification and works as an Investment Adviser Representative with Silver Oak Advisory Group, a fee-only financial planning firm in Portland.
All opinions represent the judgment of the author on the date of the post and are subject to change. Content should not be viewed as personalized investment advice or as an offer to buy or sell any of the securities discussed. Any investments mentioned in his column or blog are not managed by Silver Oak, have not been reviewed by Silver Oak and are not recommendations by Silver Oak. Legal and tax information is general in nature. Always consult an attorney or tax professional regarding your specific legal or tax situation.
Brent Hunsberger and The Oregonian reserve the right to edit and delete article content and comments that contain offensive or inappropriate language or potentially violate securities laws and regulations.
Different types of investments involve higher and lower levels of risk. There is no guarantee that a specific investment or strategy will be suitable or profitable for an investor's portfolio. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss.
Silver Oak Advisory Group is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC and only conducts business in states where it has filed proper notice or is excluded from registration requirements. Registration is not an endorsement of the firm by securities regulators and does not mean the adviser has achieved a specific level of skill or ability.
Reach Brent at itsonlymoneyblog@gmail.com

Comments by
Brent Hunsberger | For The Oregonian/OregonLive
(104 total)RSS

Thanks for your comment. I'll answer your first question, since I didn't make that clear in my column:

The answer is no. Mary could do it before her full retirement age of 66 (FRA) as long as her husband had reached his FRA and filed and suspended. However, Michael Webb, spokesman for the administration, cautions that anyone check with the agency about their particular situation and how to go about filing.

For example, he says, if Mary is under 66, she'd have to file for her own retirement benefits first. "Then, we look at the spousal benefit amount and pay whichever is higher," Webb says. "There would be a reduction for age on the spouse’s benefit, and if their own FRA retirement benefit is more than one-half the full spousal benefit (reduction amounts for age are not a factor with this), they would not be eligible for a spousal benefit prior to FRA."

For answers to your other questions, I suggest you pose them to your local Social Security office. SSA is your best resource.

You are right. Many won't. And would-be retirees should consider that seriously.

However, for perspective, life-expectancy continues to increase, thanks in part to our medical establishment. The average man turning 66 today is expected to live to 84, according to the Social Security Administration. A woman turning 66 today will live to 86. Just as many won't make it that long, many more will live far longer. They'll be much better off delaying their Social Security benefits.

According to Andy Landis, author of "Social Security: The Inside Story," couples actually have longer life expectancies than singles. I don't believe Social Security's estimates above take that factor into account. However, this joint life expectancy table does: http://www.nyc.gov/html/olr/downloads/pdf/nyceira/joint_table.pdf

You can estimate your own life expectancy here:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/population/longevity.html

Mr. Rye, thanks for sharing your perspective. I understand why you and others might be skeptical, but the chances are extremely high that workers currently close to retirement age will NOT lose. Here's my recent column on that topic:

That 6-month period was roughly between Sept. 30, 2009 and March 31, 2010 when the S&P 500 returned roughly 13 percent. That does not mean the recommendations would have returned 25% every 6 months going forward.

The study, which you can read yourself by clicking on the link above, does not reveal the specific investments. However, Table 2 in the study shows the asset allocation of the recommended investments based on the investor's risk appetite. The recommended investments were "predominantly ETFs and/or mutual funds," the study said.

Research shows this is the best approach for the average person investing for retirement. Some 70 percent of workers have $50,000 or less in retirement savings and investments, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, so that's who I'm thinking about when I say "the average person investing for retirement." It's who I think about when I write my columns (Here's EBRI's data http://www.ebri.org/pdf/surveys/rcs/2012/fs-03-rcs-12-fs3-saving.pdf).

I agree, the fact that the offer was made via e-mail and that the optimization was done by a computer program likely led to the low response rate to the offer. I posed that question to one of the study's authors, who pointed out that the offer and the actual optimization were both followed up by a call by an individual adviser. Some of the authors of the study are now working on a study to determine how to best deliver financial advice to individuals so that they both understand it well and are more likely to follow it.

I don't have all the answers, by any means. I doubt readers think I do. My job is to search for answers, though, and the results of these studies are worth examining and debating. they are also discouraging.

Unfortunately, many investors can't afford the minimum investment requirements of many good advisers. They might not have the ability or desire to pay for hourly advice. So they are left to navigate the financial world on their own, with few tools. They might have to rely on computer programs because that's what their 401k plan offers, and there are good ones out there. They might also end up seeking financial advice from individuals or advisers who are compensated in a way that drives them to offer advice that's not ideal. I believe it's my duty to remind the average investor of these factors in the market and to remind them what research shows is best for them. This research shows that some 50 auditors who approached mostly commission-based advisers with low-cost, optimally diversified retirement portfolios were steered into riskier investments. That's alarming and truly a shame.

I deleted a post here for the reasons I stated earlier -- it personally attacked another commenter. In my opinion, it was for no good reason. Oregonlive's terms that commenters agree to when they post a comment here allow it.

Good point. The IRS has been cracking down on charitable deductions. Tax preparers say it's now a good idea to keep receipts, or at least cancelled checks, for any charitable contributions you make AND deduct. Keep them for at least three years (but no more than seven years) in case you're audited.

Also, IRS instruction say specifically that if you make a one-time donation of $250 or more, you'll need to get a statement from the charity noting the amount or a description of the property as well as any goods or services you received in return and their value.

You need NOT get such a statement if you make smaller donations to one organization that, combined, total more than $250. Consider each gift a separate donation of less than $250, IRS Schedule A instrutions say.

Adding to iamlucky13's response, the alternative would be to wait several months, if not an entire year, for more accurate or complete data. I'd wager that business owners would rather have reasonably accurate data sooner so they can adjust their operations accordingly. Surveys always have a margin of error.